Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - FRist,TN

Yahoo! News ^ | 6/29/03 | Peter Kaplan - Reuters

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Reuters Photo

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.

"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.

[Van Jenerette]

If we 'cleaned house' of ALL government laws, statutes, including the U.S. Constitution of anything based on Judeo-Christian morals and values, what rights would we the people have left?

If the founding fathers had been Muslims or Hindu, etc....what RIGHTS would the people vrs. the State have? �

[Arkinsaw]

No, but they can pretend it says something it doesn't. From "Nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," the Supreme Court somehow created a right to discriminate against white people.

I was speaking theoretically.

[Van Jenerette]

Andrew Sullivan is nothing more that a homosexual 'Trojan Horse' with a good mind and bad moral judgement, which adds up to someone who should be taken seriously only with caution. �

[Rebellans]

I agree that we should not amend the Constitution on a whim, but in this case I believe it is necessary to check the abuses of the judiciary - the Supreme Court could overrule anything short of a Constitutional amendment. Besides, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of court decisions that "go against and try to modify the 10th Amendment." If we are going to change the Constitution, it should be done per the amendment process spelled out in Article V, not by judicial fiat.

As for the Second Amendment, the whim of activist judges is far more of a threat than the prospect of three-fourths of the states voting to repeal it. I seriously doubt a Constitutional amendment repealing it would have the broad support it would need.

[dogbyte12]

Other than prohibition, has there ever been an amendment that actually set forth to limit individual liberty? I am not referring to the liberty to keep slaves, and women from voting. I guess the closest I could think of off the top of my head is the liberty of Bubba to serve a third term, but that is a very limited limitation that has only affected in actuality Reagan and Clinton so far. No other candidate has been able through assasination, electoral loss, resignation been able to muster two full terms since then.

[88keys]

"I can not back this. Good idea, wrong method"

I sort of agree here...I'm glad Frist is expressing concern about this "ruling", and a desire to take some action, but it seems the real issue here is "legislating from the bench" in the matter of a newly-discovered "right to privacy" that has overturned duly enacted state laws...

From the article:

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Clearly the Texas law was unconstitutional in that it prohibited a certain behaviour for only a limited group of citizens, while permitting it for others, and there were no reasonable age or mental health considerations involved. However, an amendment banning "gay marriage" addresses only that one issue, and of more concern I'd think is the "creative" and "activist" nature of the courts, and the precedents they're setting with this kind of broad interpretation and ruling.

I understand that the enumerated rights are not to be construed as limiting, but nevertheless, we arrive at the "slippery slope" (sorry...just had to say that!) when they start finding/interpreting/creating/establishing/declaring new "rights"...

I'm perturbed that the Supremes didn't just overturn the one specific law, but instead went far beyond what was called for. I'd hope for more "action" on this though, not unlike the "wrangles" involving the Roe-v-Wade rulings, regarding re-writing legislation (in the states, mind you...) on parental notification and etc. in order to "pass Constitutional muster"...

[taxcontrol]

Using phrases like "marriage is a sacrament" is the wrong approach in my opinion. It is sure to raise the ire of a number of anti religion groups and will make any constitutional amendments a tougher fight.

[jwalsh07]

Clearly the Texas law was unconstitutional in that it prohibited a certain behaviour for only a limited group of citizens, while permitting it for others, and there were no reasonable age or mental health considerations involved

Clearly? Hardly.

[Jim Noble]

I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

How many sacraments should the Constitution recognize?

[ellery]

So you're saying that the only reason my husband and I are married is because some government bureaucrat generously permitted it? I don't buy it -- our union is infinitely more sacred and all-encompassing than government whim.

[AntiGuv]

Who the hell cares what Andrew Sullivan thinks about anything? He is a NOBODY!

Well, I certainly don't give a damn what he thinks, but he seemed to be the one who leveraged the Santorum remarks into a national media issue..

[Van Jenerette]

Clearly the Texas law was unconstitutional in that it prohibited a certain behaviour for only a limited group of citizens, while permitting it for others...

You are on track up to this point - prostitution and adult incest are the same type of behavior but they rise to the level of socially and 'up until now' legally prohibited sexual conduct.

The Lawrence decision opens Pandora's Box...

[Rebellans]

I agree. I don't think Frist should have used the word "sacrament." Marriage is simply good public policy and is certainly not unique to Christianity or any other religion. Even many atheists agree that the institution of marriage is the bedrock of civilized society and uniquely beneficial for the upbringing of children.

[Jim Noble]

The problem is an out-of-control Supreme Court which legislates from the bench rather than interprets the plain text of the Constitution. The quick answer is probably impeachment, but I don't see that happening. The next best thing is getting strict constuctionists on the Court, but the Dems are intent on blocking that and they probably will succeed.

Here's the really quick answer:

Article III, section 2: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make"

Congress can remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over state laws concerning marriage, or even, in Mr. Justice Kennedy's memorable phrase, "matters pertaining to sex". They could do it in a week, by simple majorities.

This is much easier than amending the constitution, or impeaching justices.

[AntiGuv]

Other than prohibition, has there ever been an amendment that actually set forth to limit individual liberty?

Not to my knowledge, no. And, I genuinely wish they could strike both the Prohibition amendment & its repeal from the Constitution because their very presence in that document is a disgrace...

[taxcontrol]

I tend to agree with your position. Right idea, wrong way to go about it.

Constitutional issues / amendments should be reserved for things the Federal government can and can not do. Or establish the relationship between the states and the federal. At MOST, the proposed amendment should be phrased to the effect....

Congress shall have the right to establish the legal requirements for the legal union of marriage to be recognized by all states.

Congress shall have the right to extend legal protections and status to such state...

States may extend the status of marriage beyond those covered by Congress however, no obligation or burden shall exist on other states to recognize the same.....

etc.

[jwalsh07]

Well, I certainly don't give a damn what he thinks, but he seemed to be the one who leveraged the Santorum remarks into a national media issue..

True, but what was little reproted was the polling data showing 75% of Santorum's constituents in Pa. supporting him.

[aristeides]

A pretty strong constitutional argument was made against the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment, on the grounds that, by giving the federal government power over an essentially state matter, it changed the very nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government. In making short work of that argument, the Supreme Court made some pretty sweeping statements about the validity of all validly adopted amendments.

[ellery]

The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.

Our blessed free republic bump!

[Arkinsaw]

I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before. The Constitution belongs to the people through the offices of their their States. They can alter the Constitution in any way they see fit even including creating a new branch of government or eliminating an existing one if they so desire. If the people wanted to they could amend the Constition to eliminate the Supreme Court entirely.

In fact, the people, through their States could call a convention of States, get rid of the current Constitution, and establish a new one if they so desired.

It would take a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and our form of government to believe that the Supreme Court can overrule 2/3rds of the State legislatures agreement on an amendment or to even believe that the Supreme Court even exists except at the pleasure of the people and the States.